The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, November 7, 2014

The fact that Islamic State (formerly Daesh or ISIS/ISIL) is
highly popular in the Islamic world cannot be ignored. Not a day goes by
without reading about large numbers of people from all parts of the
globe – both Muslims, would-be Muslims and converts – arriving in droves
at the Jihad centers of Syria and Iraq prepared to give up their lives
for Islamic State.

A number of groups have
sworn allegiance to the "State's" leader, Caliph Abu Bakr al Baghdadi.
The most recent of these is Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, a terror group based
in Sinai that poses a threat to Egypt.

In
addition, the fact that we have not heard of one protest or
demonstration against Islamic State anywhere in the Islamic world, not
even against its treatment of minorities, women and children, cannot be
ignored. The thunderous quiet is in sharp contrast to the violent
demonstrations that enveloped that very same world over caricatures,
films and military actions of which it disapproved. Does the Islamic
world agree with beheadings, mass murder of minorities and the sale of
women in the slave market? And another question that needs answering is
why Al Qaeda was not as attractive as Islamic State during the years in
which it operated.

The most meaningful answer
to these questions is that to many Muslims, Islamic State appears to be
the real thing – pure, holy, original and unadulterated Islam.

To
them, it is the Islam that Mohammed brought to the world and that
guided his cohorts and those who ruled after him. Many Muslims have read
or heard about books on Islamic history, where the way Islamic forces
conquered most of the 7th century world, butchering infidels, looting
churches and monasteries, selling infidels on the market and forcing
those who were vanquished to convert, is described with great pride –
and without an iota of shame.

Islamic
historians have never felt the need to apologize for the way in which
they conquered the world, to the point where they constantly describe
Islam as a religion of peace. Islamic State today is doing the same: it
conquers areas, beheads some, crucifies others, sells men and women
into slavery just the way the first Muslims did in the seventh century,
and it also cuts off the hands of thieves, stones adulterers, whips
criminals, all in accordance with Sharia law. Can any Muslim believer
protest against Sharia? Can he protest the return of Muslim practices to
the glorious days of the Prophet and his followers? Can a Muslim
criticize Mohammed's behavior when the Islamic faith declares him
infallible?

In contrast to al Qaeda, which
never took over territory in order to establish an Islamic state, IS is
the modern territorial expression of what seems to be the exact replica
of what Mohammed created in the seventh century. The writing on the IS
flag is taken from the seventh century and followers believe that it
includes Mohammed's seal. A good many IS fighters wear black, as did the
early fighters for Islam. At the head of IS today is a Caliph, the
title given to those rulers who took over after Mohammed. This is a
crucial point, because the institution of the Caliphate was dissolved in
1924 by Attaturk (Mustafa Kamal), who has now been declared an enemy of
Islam by the faithful. He stopped Sharia, set fire to mosques, closed
madrassas, switched from Arabic to Latin letters and tried to uproot
Islam from Turkey by every means at his disposal. IS, however, has
arrived to renew the Caliphate, a subject that plays on a sensitive
string in the Islamic heart.

Another issue is
that IS does not hesitate to threaten the infidel Western powers, and
has no problem butchering American and British citizens– the symbols of
heretic Christian Western hegemony. These murders are carried out
confidently and unashamedly in front of the camera, while the murderers
read a scornful English message meant for those countries' leaders,
considered the strongest men in the world, leading the strongest
countries in the world The sheer audacity of IS makes Moslems all over
the world proud and makes them feel that this is the way a true Moslem
should act and speak when faced with heretics.

This
issue is most important to the young Muslims living in the Europe and
the USA, who have not been absorbed into Western society and have
developed feelings of rage against the countries in which they were
raised. Their mass exodus to the Jihad centers of Iraq and
Syria stems from their desire to take revenge on the West for pushing
them, the children of immigrants, to the periphery of society and for
discriminating against them although they were born, raised and educated
in the West.

Of late, several videos video
clips have surfaced whose subject is the young Yazidi women handed over
to the fighters of IS to serve as slaves. The clips portray the
lighthearted bantering of the fighters prior to the young women's being
divided up among them. In traditional Islamic societies, where men are
not allowed to have any contact with women other than their wives, this
relaxation of prohibitions acts as a strong drawing factor.

Islamic
State arrived in a world where social media – youtube, facebook,
twitter – are within everyone's reach, mainly through the use of mobile
phones. The intensive utilization of these methods of communication by
IS activists on internet sites set up for that purpose, facilitates
recording their ideas, propagating them and recruiting volunteers.

Islamic
State is a wealthy organization: it has wrested control over oil
fields, and countries – most likely Turkey – buy oil from it, some
directly and some indirectly. IS fighters rob banks, kidnap people for
ransoms in the millions, receive massive funding from countries such as
Qatar, levy taxes on the populations forced to live under IS control in
the areas it has conquered. All this enables IS to purchase arms,
weapons, means of communication and transportation that create the image
of success – and in attracting people, nothing succeeds like success.

Islamic
State has gained possession of arsenals of American weapons and arms
that belonged to the Iraqi army. These are now in the hands of the
Jihadists. Some of the weapons airlifted to the Kurds fighting in Kobane
in northern Syria, fell into the hands of IS as, literally, gifts from
heaven. Many Muslims believe that American weaponry that serves Jihad
fighters battling America is a sign from heaven proving that Allah is
helping the Jihad fighters win against their enemies by means of the
enemies' own weapons.

Just for the sake of
comparison: al Qaeda does not control any territory, does not collect
taxes, does not force Sharia law on local populations, has no Caliph at
its head, and even its Jihad against infidels has waned over the years.
Al Qaeda's image is that of a tired, old, decrepit organization that has
lost its way, while Islamic State – at this point – seems a young and
vibrant one, whose actions are in true accordance with Islamic precepts
and which does not give any consideration to the heretical,
materialistic and permissive cultural mores with which Western culture
tries to inculcate Muslims all over the world.

As
things stand, IS will probably grow larger over the next few months –
or years – and become more dangerous and influential in the Middle East
and possibly the world.

This organization can be
made to disappear in one of two ways: the first, a battle to the death
that the world declares against it, putting "boots on the ground" to
destroy or imprison the Jihadists, down to the last man. The problem
with this scenario is the high price in human life and resources the
world will have to pay in order to bring it about.

The
second scenario is what has always happened in Islamic history: once a
group begins to rule, internal feuds appear based on ideology, religion,
funds, personal differences,tribal and organizational animosities –
leading to eventual disintegration and its fall from power. The problem
with this scenario is that it takes a long time and can span decades
during which the organization continues shedding blood and turning its
subjects' lives into hell.

Meanwhile, the
world does nothing of any consequence against IS, which is advancing,
gaining control over more territory and threatening other nations in its
immediate environs. Organizations and volunteers are eagerly joining it
and there is no end in sight. Islamic State is undoubtedly more
attractive than al Qaeda, making it stronger and turning it into a clear
and present danger to the Middle East and the entire world.

The
real problem in the West today is that too many European politicians
depend on the votes of large, ever growing Muslim populations, meaning
that there is very little chance that these politicians will take a
stand against anything Islamic, including Islamic State and how it must
be addressed.Dr. Mordechai KedarSource: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15925#.VFuVpRYYjLM Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

"Yes we need to combat the
Islamist threat, but this is not the way to do it.... You can't protect
democracy by undermining its very foundations…. Freedom of expression is
an essential freedom for any democratic society." — Colin Hart,
Director, The Christian Institute."They made us feel threatened about our religion. They asked, 'Do you
have friends from other religions?' They asked this many times until we
answered what they wanted us to say." — Eleventh grade student at a
Jewish Orthodox school for girls.Trinity Christian School, a small independent school in Reading, is
being downgraded and may even be closed for not inviting a Muslim imam
to lead a chapel service."Individuals who criticize the spread of Islamic Sharia law in
Britain could be deemed to be racist and silenced…. Without precise
legislative definitions, deciding what [is extremism] is subjective and
therefore open to abuse now or by any future authoritarian government." —
Keith Porteous Wood, Director, National Secular Society.

The British government has unveiled a new proposal that would require
Islamic extremists to have their social media posts pre-approved by the
government.

The plan—which is aimed at curbing the spread of jihadist propaganda
in Britain—is part of a wide-ranging effort to strengthen the
government's counter-terrorism strategy ahead of general elections set
for May 2015.

The new policy is so broad in scope, however, and the definition of
"extremist" is so all-encompassing, that the government could ultimately
silence anyone whose views are deemed to be politically incorrect,
according to free speech activists.

The so-called Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs) would prohibit any
individual the government considers to be an "extremist" from appearing
on radio and television, protesting in public or even posting messages
on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube, without permission.

The new measure was announced in passing by British Home Secretary Theresa May in a speech focused almost entirely on Islamic terrorism, and delivered at the Conservative Party's annual conference on September 29.

May's proposal was roundly condemned by critics who warned that such "gagging orders" would amount to an unprecedented attack on the freedom of speech.

'Are
you an extremist?' UK Home Secretary Theresa May has announced new
"Extremism Disruption Orders" that will ban any person the government
labels an "extremist" from appearing on radio or TV, protesting in
public or even posting messages on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube, without
permission.

The debate was reignited on October 31, when the Daily Telegraphobtained
a copy of a letter written by George Osborne, a senior member of the
British cabinet, in which he informed constituents that the EDOs would
not be limited to fighting Islamic extremism.

The ultimate objective of the EDOs, Osborne wrote, would be to
"eliminate extremism in all its forms" and they would be used to curtail
the activities of all those who "spread hate but do not break laws."

Osborne added that that the new orders—which will be included in the
Conservative Party's election manifesto—would extend to any activities
that "justify hatred" against people on the grounds of religion, sexual
orientation, gender or disability.

Osborne also revealed that anyone seeking to challenge an EDO would
have to go the High Court and file an appeal based on a question of law
rather than a question of fact.

In an interview with the Telegraph, the director of the
National Secular Society, Keith Porteous Wood, warned that individuals
who criticize the spread of Islamic Sharia law in Britain could be
deemed racist, and silenced through an EDO. He said:

"The Government should have every tool possible to tackle
extremism and terrorism, but there is a huge arsenal of laws already in
place and a much better case needs to be made for introducing draconian
measures such as Extremism Disruption Orders, which are almost
unchallengeable and deprive individuals of their liberties."Without precise legislative definitions, deciding what are 'harmful
activities of extremist individuals who spread hate' is subjective and
therefore open to abuse now or by any future authoritarian government."

The Christian Institute, a group that works to protect religious
liberty in Britain, warned that the government could use EDOs to
suppress Christian viewpoints. The institute's director, Colin Hart, said:

"It's not hard to see how they could be misused against
Christians who support traditional marriage or otherwise breach the
tenets of the Equality Act. Where will it leave a minister who preaches
that salvation is through Christ alone?"Alarmingly these proposals are even worse than Labour's notorious
Religious Hatred Bill or Section 5 of the Public Order Act that were so
detrimental to freedom of speech."What's more, Theresa May's plans are unnecessary—there are already
extensive anti-extremist powers available to the authorities. Yes we
need to combat the Islamist threat, but this is not the way to do it."In effect the plans set up State gagging orders which are maintained
by the threat of prison. You can't protect democracy by undermining its
very foundations. The Home Secretary's proposals fly in the face of her
very public espousal of 'British values.' Freedom of expression is an
essential freedom for any democratic society."

In a statement, the institute's deputy director, Simon Calvert, added:

"Anyone who expresses an opinion that isn't regarded as
totally compliant with the Equality Act could find themselves ranked
alongside Anjem Choudary, Islamic State or Boko Haram."How many times a day do intellectually lazy political activists
accuse their opponents of 'spreading hatred'? The left does it, the
right does it, liberals do it, conservatives do it, it is routine."Hand a judge a file of a thousand Twitter postings accusing this
atheist or that evangelical of 'spreading hatred' and they could easily
rule that an EDO is needed. It's a crazy idea—the Conservatives need to
drop this like a hot brick."

A spokesman for the Conservative Party rejected the criticism,
saying, "We have never sought to restrict peaceful protest or free
speech, provided it is within the law." He added:

"In Government, Conservatives have always tried to strike
the right balance on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly,
freedom to manifest one's religion, and the need to protect the public."Our proposal to introduce Extremism Disruption Orders reflects the
need to go further on challenging the threat from extremism and those
who spread their hateful views so that we can keep that democratic
society safe."

If the new proposal is enacted, it would not be the first time that
the government has expanded the applicability of laws that were
originally designed to crack down on Islamic extremism.

In October, Ofsted, the official agency for inspecting schools, downgraded a Jewish school for failing to promote "British values" as required by new regulations that were enacted in June.

In response, then British Education Secretary Michael Gove announced
that the government would require all 20,000 primary and secondary
schools to "promote British values." These values include the primacy of
British civil and criminal law, religious tolerance and opposition to
gender segregation.

In an inspection report
dated October 27, Ofsted downgraded the Beis Yaakov High School for
girls in greater Manchester for failing to promote Islam and homosexual
rights. The report states:

"There are major gaps in students' spiritual, moral,
social and cultural development. Students are not provided with
sufficient opportunities to learn about or understand people of other
faiths or cultures. The school does not promote adequately students'
awareness and tolerance of communities which are different to their own.
As a result, the school does not prepare students adequately for life
in modern Britain. This means that the school is failing to give its
students an acceptable standard of education."

Separately, Ofsted inspectors who visited an Orthodox Jewish primary school in mid-October sparked outrage after they asked 13-year-old pupils whether they know how babies are made and whether they know any homosexuals.

According to the National Association of Jewish Orthodox Schools
(NAJOS), one ninth-grade pupil said she felt "uncomfortable and upset"
after inspectors told pupils that a "woman might choose to live with
another woman and a man could choose to live with a man, it's up to
them."

Another girl in eleventh-grade said: "They made us feel threatened
about our religion. They asked 'Do you have friends from other
religions?' They asked this many times until we answered what they
wanted us to say."

In a statement, NAJOS said:
"Ofsted inspectors have been asking pupils inappropriate and
challenging questions, many of which fall outside the religious ethos
and principles at orthodox Jewish faith schools."

NAJOS director Jonathan Rabson, added:
"This confrontational approach by inspectors is a worrying trend that
has never been seen before in the UK Jewish community. We fear it
suggests a shift in policy towards faith schools."

Rabbi David Meyer, the director of Partnership for Jewish Schools (PaJeS), an educational oversight body, said:

"We are seeing a worrying trend of Ofsted inspectors showing a lack of respect for the values and traditions of our community."Multiculturalism isn't about conforming to one standard, but
celebrating differences of perspectives, and so long as they are founded
on tolerance and mutual respect, should be valued and protected."Rather than promoting the values, our schools are feeling that our
ethos is being undermined and we are being treated in a very harsh
fashion."

"Inspectors must ask questions which probe the extent to
which pupils are prepared for the next stage in their education, or
employment, or for life in modern Britain."I am sorry if these questions seemed insensitive or offensive.
Inspectors use age-appropriate questions to test children's
understanding and tolerance of lifestyles different to their own."

Meanwhile, Ofsted has warned
the Trinity Christian School, a small independent school in Reading,
that it is being downgraded and may even be closed for not inviting a
Muslim imam to lead a chapel service. By refusing to do so, Ofsted says,
the school, which caters to pupils up to the age of eight, is failing
to "actively promote" harmony between different faiths.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.
He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based
Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

It was vintage Erdogan: There is no Islamic terror. ISIS is not an Islamic organization and its name is not even ISIS.

Slightly more than a year ago, the world was shocked at the dramatic
death tolls in Kenya and Pakistan when jihadists, in separate attacks
over one weekend, killed more than 150 innocent people -- with the Kenya
attack claiming victims aged between two and 78. In a public speech
after the "black weekend," Turkey's then Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan (now President) looked very sad. Indeed, he was sad.

But not for the victims of terror attacks the previous weekend. He
was mourning Asmaa al-Beltagi, a poor, 17-year-old Egyptian girl who had
been shot dead by security forces in Cairo as she was protesting the
ouster of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Morsi, in a July
coup d'état. Asmaa's father was a senior Brotherhood figure and after
her death, Erdogan once even shed tears during a televised speech. He
then commemorated the girl at almost every election rally.

Earlier in 2013, Erdogan's Egyptian comrades, the Muslim Brotherhood,
had perpetrated the worst attacks against the Coptic Church of Egypt
since the 14th century. In one particular week, 40 churches were looted
and torched while 23 others were attacked and heavily damaged. In one
town, after burning a Franciscan school, Islamists paraded three of its
nuns on the streets, as if the nuns were prisoners of war.

Two security guards working on a tour boat owned by Christians were
burned alive; and an orphanage was burned down. Meanwhile, the
Brotherhood's Facebook page claimed that, "the Church has declared war
against Islam and Muslims."

Today if one typed the words "Islam" and "terrorism" into a quick
search, Google would produce over 42 million results. But one of
Erdogan's favorite statements is his famous line, "There is no Islamic
terror." In various times and capitals, Erdogan has powerfully stated
that, "Muslims never resort to terror or violence." Once he said of Omar
al-Bashir, Sudan's Muslim president, who is wanted by the International
Criminal Court on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity: "I
went to Sudan and did not see any genocide there. Muslims never resort
to genocide."

The world's Islamic terrorist organizations must have felt
disappointed by Erdogan's perpetual denial of their existence, acts of
terror and stated goals. They sent one such group to Erdogan's doorstep
so that he could rethink his "denialism."

'Islamic
State? ISIS? Terrorists?' Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
frequently declared, "There is no Islamic terror" and "Muslims never
resort to terror or violence." He once stated, "I went to Sudan and did
not see any genocide there. Muslims never resort to genocide."

The death toll in Syria and Iraq at the hands of extremists from the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS] is estimated at "several
thousand" since the summer, when the group took large swathes of land in
the two countries neighboring Turkey. Only last Sunday, ISIS's
jihadists lined up and shot dead at least 50 Iraqi men, women and
children from the same tribe. The killings, all committed in public,
raised the death toll suffered by the Sunni Al Bu Nimr tribe in recent
days to 150. Earlier last week, Human Rights Watch reported that ISIS
executed 600 Iraqi prison inmates when they seized Mosul, the country's
second-largest city, in June.

Ironically, in June the same men kidnapped 49 Turks, including
Erdogan's consul general and consulate officials along with their
families, in Mosul and kept them as hostages for 101 days before they
agreed to release them in exchange for ISIS terrorists kept in Turkish
prisons. None of these acts seems to have persuaded Erdogan that the
terrorists were killing simply for the universal advancement of
Salafism, and that they call themselves Muslims.

After a meeting in Paris with French President François Hollande,
Erdogan gave a lecture and accused "those who try to portray ISIS as an
Islamic organization...." Fortunately, he did not claim that ISIS was a
Jewish organization.

But he said other things that must have appalled the Paris audience:

"Mind you, I am deliberately avoiding the use of the acronym ISIS
(because it contains the word 'Islamic'). I use the name 'Daesh' because
these are terrorists." Call it a slip of the tongue, but there is no
such word or acronym as "Daesh." There is, though, "Daesh" ("ad-dawlah
al-Islamiyah fil- Iraq wa ash-Sham"). Nice try by Erdogan, but not quite
smart enough. The Arabic acronym "Daesh" also contains the word Islamic
("al-Islamiyah"). Erdogan may next time try a Sanskrit, Zulu, Swahili,
Malagasy or Kx'a acronym for the jihadists, but they, too, by simple
logic of acronyms, should contain the word "Islamic."

Erdogan's Paris lecture exhibited more interesting mental logic. The
international media, he said, is engaged in systematic efforts to
portray Turkey as a country that supports "Daesh." By all means, the
Turkish president has every right to object to such portrayal no matter
how unconvincingly. But Erdogan did not stop there. He said those media
members were "virtually traitors!" And he left it to his audience to
find out how foreign nationals could also be Turkish traitors.

It was vintage Erdogan. There is no Islamic terror. ISIS is not an
Islamic organization and its name is not even ISIS; it is "Daesh." And
foreign journalists are plotting treason against Turkey.Burak BekdilSource: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4847/erdogan-isis-denial Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

In
Jerusalem, The Temple Mount is the historical location of the First and
Second Temples, the holiest place in the world for Jews. There have
been disputes about the right of Jews to pray there – and it is
absurd that anyone in the world can deny Jews the right of freedom of
prayer in the State of Israel.

A week ago, American-born Rabbi Yehuda Glick, a leader of the
movement encouraging Jews to pray at the Temple Mount, was shot by a
Palestinian Arab assassin who objected to the idea of Jews praying on
the Temple Mount. The Palestinian Arabs continue to do all they can to
deny Jews the right to live – and pray – in the Jewish State. It is
unacceptable – and Jews must have the right to pray at the Temple Mount. [Editor: It must be noted here that there are also reasons, according to Jewish law, that Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount is limited.]

Ze’ev Jabotinsky,
the Zionist prophet, once asked, “Is a situation moral in which one
side can commit any crime or murder and the other is forbidden to
react?” There must be a price for attacks upon Jews in
Israel at the holiest site in Judaism – and amongst that price must be
increased rights of Jews to pray. As Ricki Hollander has said,

“Jewish reverence for the Temple Mountlong predates the building of the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque in the 7th century CE, and even predates the construction of the first Jewish Temple by King Solomon almost 2000 years earlier.”

There are so many meaningful reasons and quotes about the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount:

* “There is very telling Jewish teaching about the Temple Mount, and
that is: whoever controls the Mount, controls the world.” Yisrael Medad

* “[The Temple Mount] is the only place in the country where you
feel you’re discriminated against because you’re Jewish.” Eli Duker

* “I want equal rights for Jews on the Temple Mount. What Muslims do, I want to do too.” Arnon Segal

* “There is only one meaning to giving up the Temple Mount: the end of the State of Israel.” Ronen Shoval

* “Although other parts of the Temple Mount retaining wall remain
standing, the Western Wall is especially dear, as it is the spot closest
to the Holy of Holies, the central focus of the Temple.” Rabbi Shraga
Simmons

* “This compound was our Temple Mount. Here stood our Temple during
ancient time, and it would be inconceivable for Jews not to be able
freely to visit this holy place now that Jerusalem is under our rule.”
Defense Minister Moshe Dayan

* “Islamist exclusivity has debased the Temple Mount. It’s time to
return this holy site to its original inclusivity and allow anyone who
wants to pray there respectfully to do so. That is the meaning of Jewish
sovereignty and human dignity.” Moshe Dann

* “According to the Talmud, the world was created from the
foundation stone of the Temple Mount. It’s believed to be the biblical
Mount Moriah, the location where Abraham fulfilled God’s test to see if
he would be willing to sacrifice his son Isaac.” Aaron Klein

* “But you cannot be a Zionist if you are prepared to yield the
place that provides us with the moral, historic and religious right to
this land – the Temple Mount.” Ronen Shoval

* “It is the supposed site of Mt. Moriah, where Abraham nearly
sacrificed his son Isaac, where the prophet Muhammad is believed to have
ascended into heaven, and was the location of the first and second
temples, Judaism’s most holy structures.” Jason Reuter

* “Every Jew that goes to the Temple Mount puts another stone in the
building of the Temple, and is making another step to fulfill Jewish
sovereignty on the Temple Mount.” Moshe Feiglin

* “Three times a day, for thousands of years, Jewish prayers from
around the world have been directed toward the Temple Mount. Kabbalistic
tradition says that all prayers from around the world ascend to this
spot, from where they then ascend to heaven.” Rabbi Shraga Simmons

* “We were not trying to demonstrate that it’s exclusively ours, or
that we want the Muslims off, only that it’s a significant, if not the
most significant Jewish site, archaeologically, historically, and
religiously. This is the heart of it all.” Elli Fischer

* “It is the Jewish root – the deepest roots that any people has. Elsewhere, we grope for insight.” Rabbi Shraga Simmons

* “The Temple Mount has remained a focal point for Jewish services
for thousands of years. Prayers for a return to Jerusalem and the
rebuilding of the Temple have been uttered by Jews since the Second
Temple was destroyed, according to Jewish tradition.” Aaron Klein

* “Jewish religious interest in the Mount is not monolithic, and
includes those who merely want to visit a site of great Jewish
importance, those who believe Jews should be allowed to pray there,
those who believe Temple rituals, like sacrifice, should be renewed
immediately, and those who support the construction of a Third Temple in place of the Islamic shrines of the Noble Sanctuary.” Matti Friedman

* “Since Jews ascend it would not enter my mind to stop them from holding prayers services there.” Itzhak Nissim

* “Despite the conventional wisdom that the Jewish people were
banished from this holy site, the evidence suggests that Jews continued
to maintain a strong connection to and frequently even a presence on the
Temple Mount for the next two thousand years.” F.M. Loewenberg

by Ian SmithC-SPAN
recently aired footage of the 11th annual Immigration Law and Policy
Conference held every year at the Georgetown University Law Center just
off Capitol Hill. The confab’s always a “who’s who” of the open-borders,
anti-sovereignty movement, from the immigration lawyers lobby to
Hispanic chauvinist groups, and past keynote speakers have included such
border insecurity-stalwarts as Chuck Schumer and John McCain.

This year’s big panel was on the “legal precedents” supporting
President Obama’s forthcoming amnesty, led by Marc Rosenblum of the
Migration Policy Institute, a pro-open borders, Carnegie-funded outfit.
Rosenblum helped craft the 2007 McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill and he’s
advised Obama on immigration policy in the past. In other forums, he’s
also described America as a “nation of nations,” presumably because he
thinks the country should no longer be an actual nation unified by
language, culture and history.

Norm Ornstein, resident leftist at the American Enterprise Institute
and Rosenblum’s fellow panelist, was more open about his views on
transforming America. When speaking about the GOP’s voter base (“old
white men”), Ornstein informed the audience that “older white men are a
group you cannot trust.” Although this is normal discourse for the
contemporary Left, it should still be a red alert for those who resist
balkanizing the nation – watch the video from 01:06:30; send your
complaints to Georgetown University, AEI, and the SPLC.

Rosenblum’s pro-amnesty presentation was essentially a lecture to
attendees (majority law students) on why we should ignore the
immigration laws on our books should. He proceeded to “justify” Obama’s
forthcoming amnesty by pointing out five previous “executive actions on
immigration” going back to the 1960s, which gave some degree of
discretion to federal agencies in the management of deportations. To
people who actually know immigration law, however, Rosenblum’s
presentation was close to fraudulent.

Left out of his powerpoint was that of the five executive actions
picked, four were illegitimate power-grabs by federal agencies which
were later restricted or completely culled by Congress and the other
wasn’t even an executive program at all, but one implemented by
Congress. Each are addressed below. Rosenblum’s list actually turns out
to be very useful for pro-borders advocates, as it shows a historical
pattern of Congress pushing back against programs created out of thin
air by the executive.

As Rosenblum first notes, the executive has in the past exercised
so-called “parole authority” as a sort of mass refugee program for whole
groups of illegals, like after Castro’s takeover of Cuba in 1960 when
thousands of Cubans illegally residing in the US were granted permission
to stay. But as was recalled in a recent court filing by the
Immigration Reform Law Institute, the INS’s use of group parole had been
in violation of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which grants
parole only in isolated, case-by-case situations. In the words of the
court of appeals for the second circuit, Congress therefore clamped down
on the practice in 1980 with the Refugee Act and again in 1996 with the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)
due to a “concern that parole … was being used by the executive to
circumvent congressionally established immigration policy.”

Other programs justifying amnesty described by Rosenblum have
followed a similar pattern. The still-current “Temporary Protected
Status” (TPS) program, started in 1990, is basically a temporary refugee
program that can apply to certain national groups when their country of
origin becomes ravaged by war or suffers a natural disaster. But TPS
was implemented by Congress, not the executive. In fact, Congress passed
TPS in order to restrain the executive which had for years practiced a
similar program on its own (through a program called “extended voluntary
departure,” which Rosenblum also covered). Congress reacted by creating
an “exclusive remedy” in the area of deportation-relief based on
nationality, which was intended to tether by statute the executive’s
potentially boundless application of deportation relief.

Another program Rosenblum uses, “deferred enforced departure,” merely
sought to revive what the executive had been doing before TPS. The
courts have described this program as essentially the same as TPS,
although Obama extended deportation relief under the program to a group
of Liberians living illegally in the US in 2011.

Finally, there’s “deferred action,” Rosenblum’s final justification
for Obama’s unilateral amnesty. This program was an attempt by the
executive to delegate to itself the authority to grant relief based on
humanitarian reasons or reasons of convenience. Congress once again took
back this authority with the 1996 passage of IIRIRA, and although DHS
admitted in 2000 that the statute expunged deferred action, Obama cited
it as an authority in 2012 when he unilaterally implemented the
“Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” program, which has twice been
held unconstitutional in federal court and which was based on a bill
(the DREAM Act) that was rejected 24 times in Congress.

Executive discretion for group-deportation relief has always been
followed by Congress either rolling it back or regulating it under
legislation according to Congress’s terms. That tension is now higher
than it’s ever been.

Much of the motivation behind the executive actions Rosenblum lays
out was probably explained as a natural power-grab from bureaucrats
simply looking to expand their authority. But the motivation for amnesty
today appears to be far more sinister. People like Obama, Rosenblum and
Ornstein want to balkanize the nation, presumably out of distrust of
“old white men.” And so serious is their drive toward this end, they’ll
even ignore the letter and spirit of the law to get there.Ian SmithSource: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ian-smith/a-legal-precedent-for-executive-amnesty/ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

by F.M. LoewenbergThe claim that no Jewish temple ever existed in Jerusalem and that
Jews have no rights whatsoever on the Temple Mount is part of the
"temple denial" doctrine that has been increasingly internalized in
Palestinian academic, religious, and political circles since the 1967
Six-Day War.[1]
Others, both Jews and non-Jews, believe that a temple did exist but
indicate that the Jews abandoned the area soon after the destruction of
the Second Temple nearly two thousand years ago. From that time onward,
Jews lost all direct contact with the Temple Mount and relocated their
central worship site to other locations, such as the Mount of Olives and
later the Western Wall.[2]

The facts do not support either of these claims. The destruction of
the Second Temple in the year 70 C.E. did not spell the end of Jewish
activities on the Temple Mount. For many centuries, Jews continued their
attachment to the site by maintaining a physical presence on the
mountain. And when they were prevented from doing so, they prayed three
times a day for the speedy renewal of the sacrificial service in a
restored temple.

Stones
from the destroyed temple can be seen here. Contrary to what many
believe, Jews did not abandon the Temple Mount after the temple's actual
destruction in 70 C.E. There is even evidence that sacrifices continued
for some time on a surviving altar. It was only after the Bar Kochba
revolt (132-35 C.E.) that Jews were barred from the site and from
Jerusalem by the victorious and vindictive Emperor Hadrian.

Both the first and second temples were located in a mountainous
portion of Jerusalem that Jewish tradition identified with the biblical
Mount Moriah, site of Abraham's attempted sacrifice of Isaac.[3] Over time, the site was referred to as the Temple Mount (Har Habayit),
and it was here that Herod (r. 37-4 B.C.E.) transformed a relatively
small structure into a wonder of the ancient world. However, the
magnificent edifice he built stood for less than a hundred years; it was
destroyed in 70 C.E., three years after a Jewish rebellion against
Roman rule broke out.

The Jewish people's response to this cataclysmic event is in some
sense the entire post-70 history of the Jews as they built institutions
and created an entire culture that kept the people alive for millennia.
But what role did the actual Temple Mount play in their lives after its
physical destruction? Despite the conventional wisdom that the Jewish
people were banished from this holy site, the evidence suggests that
Jews continued to maintain a strong connection to and frequently even a
presence on the Temple Mount for the next two thousand years. Even when
they were physically prevented from ascending the site, their attachment
to Har Habayit remained strong and vibrant.

Roman Rule (70-300)

Once the Jewish revolt had been put down, Jews were again permitted
to visit the site of the former temple since the Romans generally did
not object to the worship of local gods. As far as they were concerned,
once the rebellion was suppressed, there was no longer any impediment to
Jewish worship on the mount. Many stories in the Talmud testify to the
fact that leading rabbis continued to pray on the now desolate Temple
Mount.[4]

Ascent to the Temple Mount was not limited to rabbis; the people's
attachment to the former sanctuary also remained very strong. One story
relates that "Ben Zoma once saw a [large] crowd on one of the steps of
the Temple Mount."[5]

The people continued to bring sacrifices that were offered on a
Temple Mount altar that had survived the destructive fire by the Romans.
The Mishnah, a central code of Jewish law codified in the early third
century C.E., states that "one may offer sacrifices [on the place where
the temple used to stand] even though there is no house [i.e., temple]."[6]
Some rabbis held that the sacrificial services continued almost without
interruption for sixty-five years following the temple's destruction
while others suggest that sacrificial services ceased in 70 C.E. but
were resumed for the 3-year period when Bar Kochba controlled Jerusalem.[7]

Not only did the Jews continue to offer sacrifices and prayer on the
mount, but at least once in the half-century following the temple's
destruction, they began to build a new edifice for a third temple.
Emperor Hadrian (76-138), eager to gain the cooperation of the Jews,
granted them permission to rebuild their temple. The Jews started to
make the necessary preparations, but before long, Hadrian, at the
instigation of the Samaritans, went back on his word and the project was
stopped.[8]

Following the defeat of the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 C.E., Jews
were barred for the first time from the Temple Mount. The victorious and
vindictive Emperor Hadrian ordered that the Temple Mount be ploughed
under and issued strict orders prohibiting Jews from living in Jerusalem
and from praying on the Temple Mount. As an alternative, Jews assembled
for prayer on the Mount of Olives from whence they had an unobstructed
view of the temple ruins. While this prohibition was strictly enforced
during Hadrian's lifetime, Jews did pray on the Temple Mount at various
times during the second and the third centuries because the prohibition
was not always fully enforced. Some scholars question whether Hadrian's
decree was ever legally formulated, but all agree that a policy of
prohibiting Jews in Jerusalem and on the Temple Mount was in effect.[9]

Byzantine Period (300-618)

The transformation of the pagan Roman Empire into a Christian realm
early in the fourth century marked a decisive turning point in the
history of the Western world. Under pagan rule, Jerusalem had become a
relatively insignificant provincial city, but now it attracted many
pilgrims who came to worship at Christian holy sites. A new church, the
Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher, was built on the purported site of
Jesus' crucifixion and became the city's central religious site. Until
the Crusader conquest of the city eight centuries later, the importance
of the Temple Mount was deliberately de-emphasized. Though many churches
and other religious buildings were erected throughout the city at sites
associated with the life of Jesus, only one or two were built on the
Temple Mount. Until recently, it was widely believed that in the
Byzantine period the Temple Mount was deliberately abandoned by
Christians and turned into the local garbage dump[10]
in order to fulfill the New Testament prediction that the temple would
be totally destroyed and "not one stone will be left here upon another."[11]
These views were challenged by the recent publication of suppressed
archeological findings. The excavations, the only ones ever permitted on
the Temple Mount by the Muslim waqf in modern times, were
conducted by British archeologists in the 1930s. Under al-Aqsa mosque,
they found evidence of a mosaic floor, dated to the fifth to seventh
centuries, that was quite similar to floors of churches found in
Bethlehem. Most likely they are remnants of a Byzantine church that was
built on the Temple Mount—contrary to the accepted theories.[12]

Emperor Constantine (272-357) renewed the laws that prohibited Jews
from living in or even visiting Christian Jerusalem, allowing access to
the Temple Mount once a year on Tisha b'Av (the ninth of the Hebrew
month of Av, the anniversary of the day the temples were destroyed).[13]
In 333, the anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux described in some detail the
desolate Temple Mount, noting a "perforated stone" (perhaps today's
Foundation Stone found in the Dome of the Rock), which the Jews anointed
with oil once a year on Tisha b'Av. On this day, he heard the Jews
recite the Book of Lamentations on the Temple Mount and saw them tear
their clothes as a sign of mourning.[14] Later Byzantine writers, including Jerome, corroborate that Jews continued these mourning practices on the actual Temple Mount.[15]

Constantine's nephew Julian, who became emperor in 361 C.E., turned
his back on Christianity and issued an edict of universal religious
toleration for all—pagans, Jews, and Christians. He reversed the ban
against Jews in Jerusalem early in his reign.

In 363 C.E., Julian promised to help rebuild the temple in Jerusalem;
among Diaspora Jews, his pledge was greeted with great enthusiasm[16]
although some rabbis were apprehensive about the undertaking,
hesitating to engage in building the Third Temple prior to the arrival
of the messiah.[17]
Julian, nonetheless, went ahead with the project and ordered the
imperial treasury to make available large sums of money and building
materials. Many Jews came to Jerusalem to assist the skilled craftsmen
and masons in the removal of the existing foundation, the first step in
the rebuilding project.

Christian residents of the city were vigorous in their opposition to
any attempt to rebuild the temple. Many gathered in the Church of the
Holy Sepulcher to pray for the termination of the project. It would seem
their prayers were answered since all work halted abruptly in the
summer of 363; whether this was due to arson, an earthquake, or merely
Julian's death on the Persian front is a matter of some dispute.
Julian's successor, a devout Christian, immediately canceled the
temple-rebuilding effort.[18]

By the latter part of the fourth century, the Temple Mount had
disappeared completely from the landscape of Christian Jerusalem. The
pilgrim Egeria who visited Jerusalem in the early 380s provided a
detailed description of the city in letters to her friends, but she made
no mention of the Temple Mount.[19]
Similarly, the mosaic world map of Medaba from the mid-sixth century
depicts Jerusalem in great detail but omits the Temple Mount altogether
as does a seventh-century Armenian account of the city's holy places.[20]

Jews, on the other hand, never forgot the Temple Mount even when none
of the original temple buildings remained standing. Wherever they
lived, they faced Jerusalem three times every day and prayed for the
restoration of the temple and the renewal of the sacrificial service.[21]
Furthermore, there are indications that despite imperial bans, some
Jews continued to pray on the Temple Mount. The late fourth-century sage
Rabbi Bibi offered instructions to those who went to the Temple Mount
to ensure their behavior would not degrade the holiness of the place.[22] A sixth-century aggadic work, Midrash Shir Hashirim Rabba,
includes an instruction for Jews everywhere to face in the direction of
the Temple Mount when praying, adding that "and those who pray on the
Temple Mount should turn to the Holy of Holies,"[23] an injunction that only makes sense if the ban was not strictly enforced.

The Jewish people's continued attachment to the Temple Mount is
exemplified by an event that occurred during the reign of the Roman
Empress Eudocia (401-60). When she went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land
in 438, she was greeted warmly by Jews everywhere, probably as a result
of her policy of supporting non-Christians. When the leading rabbis
asked her for permission to once again ascend the Temple Mount, she
immediately agreed. Great excitement gripped the local Jewish leaders
who sent letters to other communities throughout the world informing
them of the good news and asking them to come on pilgrimage to Jerusalem
for the coming Sukkot festival. More than 100,000 Jews came to
Jerusalem that year, but once again, Jerusalem's Christians launched a
violent protest and blocked access to the mountain.[24]

For almost two centuries after this incident, Jews were forbidden to
live in Jerusalem. Until the Persian conquest in 618, Jerusalem was
officially a city without Jews. This would change dramatically under the
brief period of Persian rule and the subsequent, and far lengthier, era
of Muslim hegemony.

For centuries, Persian and Roman (later Byzantine) armies had battled
each other over the fringes of their respective empires. The invasion
of Palestine by King Khosru II of Persia in 613-14 C.E. succeeded in
briefly wresting control of Jerusalem from Constantinople. Khosru was
aided by Babylonian Jewry who supplied 30,000 Jewish soldiers in return
for a promise that they would participate in the capture of Jerusalem
and that a Jewish governor would be appointed to rule over the city.[25]
Once the city was captured, the Persians appointed Nehemiah ben Hushiel
as governor, and the new governor lost no time in reestablishing the
sacrificial service on the Temple Mount.

Rabbi Elazer Kalir, one of the earliest and most prolific of Jewish liturgical poets, confirms the restoration:

When Assyria [Persia] came to the city … and pitched his
tents there / the holy people [Jews] were a bit relieved / because he
permitted the reestablishment of the Temple / and they built there the
holy altar / and offered upon it holy sacrifices / but they did not
manage to build the Temple / because the Messiah had not yet come.[26]

But once again, this return to the Temple Mount was short-lived.
Nehemiah was soon executed either out of fear of his messianic
pretensions or because the support of the city's larger Christian
population was preferred over that of the smaller number of Jews. In any
event, in 629, only ten years after the conquest, the Persians lost
control of the city to the Byzantines who were subsequently defeated by
victorious Arab forces sweeping out of the desert.

Early Muslim Rule (638-1099)

Jerusalem was conquered by Arab forces in May 638, an accomplishment
ascribed by Muslim sources to the Caliph Umar. In return for assistance
in the taking of the city, the Jews received the right to reside in
Jerusalem and to pray on the Temple Mount without interference.[27]

In 680, fifty years after Umar's conquest of Jerusalem, the
Damascus-based Umayyad dynasty engaged in a struggle for control of the
Muslim world with a rebel dynasty based in Mecca. The Umayyads opted to
fight the rebels by damaging Mecca's economy, which was based almost
entirely on revenues from Muslim pilgrims. Their secret weapon was to
create a competing pilgrimage site by building a magnificent edifice,
the Dome of the Rock, on the site of the destroyed Jewish temple and
hoping that this mosque would weaken Mecca's economy by siphoning off
pilgrims from Mecca. Thus, a political strategy designed to fight
mutineers in far-off Mecca transformed Jerusalem's Temple Mount into a
Muslim holy site with far-reaching implications to this day.

But the metamorphosis of the Temple Mount into Islam's third holiest
site did not result in a total exclusion of Jews from the location. Soon
after the Muslim conquest, Jews received permission to build a
synagogue on the Temple Mount. Perhaps the wooden structure that was
built over the Foundation Stone was first intended for a synagogue, but
even before it was completed, the site was expropriated by the city's
rulers. The Jews received another site on the mount for a synagogue in
compensation for the expropriated building.[28] Most probably there was an active synagogue on the Temple Mount during most of the early Muslim period.[29]
Solomon ben Jeroham, a Karaite (a medieval Jewish sectarian) exegete
who lived in Jerusalem between 940 and 960, affirmed that Jews were
permitted to pray on the Temple Mount, noting that "the courtyards of
the Temple were turned over to them and they prayed there [on the Temple
Mount] for many years."[30]

Al-Aqsa Mosque (the Furthest Mosque), the second mosque on the Temple
Mount, was built in 715 and was linked to a Muslim legend, based on an
ambiguous verse in the Qur'an concerning Muhammad's night journey to
heaven.[31]
In this way, the Umayyads cleverly associated Muhammad's life with
Jerusalem even though the prophet died years before the city's capture
by the Muslims. This construction further cemented the site's holiness
to Islam. Nonetheless, during this first phase of Islamic governance,
Muslim rulers were generally tolerant of Jewish activities on the
mountain. Whenever a more intolerant ruler assumed
control of the city, Jews were forbidden from praying on the mount but
instead worshipped at one of the many Temple Mount gates; an
eleventh-century document found in the geniza or storeroom of a
Cairo synagogue describes the circuit followed by the pilgrims and the
prayers they recited at each of the gates.[32]

After the conquest of Jerusalem by the army of the Fatimid dynasty
(969), a Temple Mount synagogue was rebuilt and used until the Jews were
banished by Caliph al-Hakim in 1015. When a subsequent ruler canceled
Hakim's eviction order, the Jews again returned to this synagogue on the
Temple Mount and worshipped there until the conquest of Jerusalem by
the Crusaders. Hebrew writings found on the internal walls of the Golden
Gate are believed to have been written by Jewish pilgrims at least one
thousand years ago,[33] thus testifying once again to the continued Jewish attachment to and presence on the Temple Mount in this era.

Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099-1187)

The early Arab rulers of Jerusalem for the most part did not destroy
or confiscate any of the city's churches. Although charged an entrance
toll, Christian pilgrims continued to visit their sacred shrines. This
religious tolerance came to an end when the Seljuk Turks swarmed out of
Central Asia in the latter part of the eleventh century and captured
Jerusalem in 1071. Assaults on pilgrims and attacks on churches became
commonplace. As reports of these anti-Christian activities reached
Europe, Pope Urban II in 1095 demanded that Christians rescue the Holy
Land from the "infidel," an appeal that resulted in the First Crusade.

Within hours of breaching the walls of Jerusalem in 1099, the
victorious Crusaders had massacred almost all of the city's Jewish and
Muslim inhabitants.[34]
The Crusaders ascended the Temple Mount and after giving thanks to God
for their victory, converted the mosques into churches, renaming the
Dome of the Rock the Temple of God (Templum Domini) and al-Aqsa Mosque,
the Temple of Solomon (Templum Solomnis). The mount was declared
off-limits to all non-Christians and became the center of religious and
civil life in Crusader Jerusalem.[35]

Despite the prohibition, Jews continued to ascend the mount even
during the Crusader period. The prominent medieval Jewish commentator
and leader Maimonides (1135-1204) wrote in a letter in 1165 that he
"entered the Great and Holy House [and] prayed there."[36]
The Jewish traveler, Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Jerusalem sometime
between 1159 and 1172, also recorded Jews praying "in front of the
Western Wall [of the Dome of the Rock],[37] one of the [remaining] walls of what was once the Holy of Holies."[38] Thus, even in one of the darkest and most intolerant periods of Jewish history, the faithful did not abandon the Temple Mount.

A Medieval Dispute

Less than a century later, the Kurdish Muslim warrior Saladin
regained control of the city, thus putting an end to the Crusader
Kingdom of Jerusalem in October 1187. Even though the Temple Mount was
re-consecrated as a Muslim sanctuary, Saladin permitted both Jews and
Muslims to settle in Jerusalem and to worship on the Temple Mount. The
Muslim authorities permitted Jews to erect a synagogue on the site[39]
although the situation vacillated over the next few centuries. For
example, Saladin, who at first had urged Jews to come back to Jerusalem,
a few years later forbade them to go on the Temple Mount. From the late
thirteenth century to the mid-nineteenth, the mountain was, for the
most part, off-limits to Jews with occasional interludes of access.

During the first millennium following the destruction of the Second
Temple, Jews did not hesitate to ascend the mount, but by the Middle
Ages, two distinct halakhic (Jewish religious law) views on the
permissibility of doing so had crystallized. The dispute centered
largely on issues of the degrees of holiness associated with the areas
where the temple once stood and on whether Jews who could no longer
attain ritual purity might inadvertently enter the location of the
former temple. According to most rabbinic authorities, in the first
centuries after the temple's destruction, it was permissible to walk on
the Temple Mount because the ashes of the Red Heifer, which were
necessary for attaining ritual purity, were still available.[40]
But by the medieval period, these ashes were no longer available, and
thus prevented Jews from achieving ritual purity. Under these
circumstances, Maimonides taught, "Even though the Temple is in ruins
today due to our sins, everyone is obligated to revere it like when it
was standing … one is not permitted to enter any place that is
forbidden."[41] On the other hand, Rabbi Avraham ben David of Provence [Raavad] (c.1125-98), the author of critical glosses on Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, concluded that "one who enters [the Temple Mount] nowadays does not receive the penalty of karet [literally, cutting off]."[42]
Though there are various interpretations of the meaning of Raavad's
gloss, he probably held that the Temple Mount without a temple no longer
had its original holiness.

In the subsequent halakhic literature, the vast majority of
rabbinical authorities "built a fence around" Maimonides' conclusion and
forbade entering any part of the Temple Mount, fearing that some might
inadvertently enter a forbidden area. Of the classical authorities, only
Rabbi Menachem Meiri (1249-1316), a noted French Talmudic scholar,
expressed the view that in his days it was permissible for Jews to enter
the Temple Mount.[43]

And yet Jewish attachment to this ruined site persisted. In 1211,
three hundred European rabbis, mostly from England and France, embarked
for the Holy Land. One, Rabbi Shmuel ben R. Shimshon, wrote about his
visit to the Temple Mount.[44] Early in the fourteenth century, Rabbi Ishtori Haparchi (1280-1366) wrote in his halakhic and geographic book Kaftor ve-Ferah about an earlier rabbinic ruling that urged people to come to Jerusalem and offer sacrifices on the Temple Mount.[45]
While nothing apparently came of these plans, it is significant that a
noted authority of the period could contemplate such an act, despite the
self-imposed rabbinic ban. Toward the end of the Mamluk period, there
is evidence from the chief rabbi of Jerusalem, David ben Shlomo Ibn
Zimra (1479-1573), who wrote that the city's Jews regularly went to the
Temple Mount in order to view the entire temple ruins and pray there. He
added that "we have not heard or seen anyone object to this."[46]

The Ottoman Empire (1516-1856)

With the Ottoman conquest of Jerusalem in 1516, the relationship
between the Jewish people and the Temple Mount entered a new phase.
Sultan Suleiman I (the Magnificent, 1494-1566) ordered the rebuilding of
the city's walls and encouraged many European Jews, especially those
who had been expelled from Spain and Portugal a generation earlier, to
settle in the Holy City. Suleiman also instructed his court architect to
prepare a place for Jewish prayer in an alley at the bottom of the
Western retaining wall of the Temple Mount because he had prohibited all
non-Muslims from entering any part of the Temple Mount. A royal decree
was issued that guaranteed for all times the right of Jews to pray at
this Western Wall in compensation for the Jews' relinquishing their
legal rights to pray on the mount itself.[47]

Subsequent Ottoman rulers invested little effort in the upkeep of the
Dome of the Rock or al-Aqsa Mosque. There are no records of important
Muslim clerics or kings or even large crowds of ordinary Muslims praying
on the Temple Mount.[48]
Even those rabbinical authorities, who agreed in theory with the
precedents that permitted ascent, hedged their rulings in view of the
actual situation on the ground. Rabbi Yosef Di'Trani, who visited
Jerusalem during the 1590s, noted that there were locations on the
southern and eastern sides of the Temple Mount where Jews could walk
freely without any concern of entering a prohibited area, but he ruled
that Jews should, nonetheless, avoid going there because they were not
ritually clean. In the nineteenth century, students of the rabbinical
giant, the Vilna Gaon, arrived in Jerusalem and became the prototype of
today's ultra-Orthodox haredi community. The leader of this
group, Rabbi Yisrael of Shklov (d. 1839), held that though there were
areas on the Temple Mount that they were allowed to enter, Jews were,
nevertheless, forbidden to ascend as the exact location of these
permitted areas was in some doubt.[49]
This ruling became the normative position of the Orthodox world for the
next 150 years. Despite rabbinical decrees prohibiting access to the
mountain and the death penalty threat for any Jew caught on the
mountain, the deep-seated Jewish attachment to the Temple Mount remained
strong. An unknown number of Jews ascended the mountain surreptitiously
during these centuries. No records were kept of these visits because of
their clandestine nature, but occasional references in Muslim court
records and travelers' accounts give evidence of their occurrence.[50]

Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

In the aftermath of the Crimean War (1853-56), the Temple Mount was
opened daily (except on Fridays) to all visitors, regardless of their
religion—a concession demanded by the victorious British. Nevertheless,
the Jerusalem rabbis again issued a decree prohibiting Jews from going
up, threatening to put any Jew who ignored their ruling under the ban, a
form of rabbinical excommunication from the community. While the vast
majority of Jews abided by the decree, many ignored it, including
prominent visitors, such as Sir Moses Montefiore and Baron Edmond de
Rothschild. Many of the new secular settlers also disregarded the
rabbinical instructions and visited the site.[51]

Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935), the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi
of the Jewish community in Mandatory Palestine, repeatedly prohibited
entering any part of the Temple Mount, a position also reiterated by his
successor Rabbi Isaac Herzog (1888-1959). Herzog testified in 1938
before the British Partition Committee that Jews were not allowed to go
onto the Temple Mount until the coming of the messiah.

Just before the outbreak of the 1948 War of Independence, Herzog
instructed Gen. David Shaltiel, the Jerusalem sector commander of the
Jewish underground forces, that should his forces capture the Temple
Mount, they should make every effort to expel all enemy soldiers, but
once they had accomplished this task they were to leave the Temple Mount
as quickly as possible because of the holiness of the place. These
instructions became moot since the Jordanian army succeeded in occupying
all of the Old City, including the Temple Mount. For the next nineteen
years, no Jew was allowed to approach the Western Wall or the Temple
Mount despite provisions in the Jordan-Israel armistice agreement that
called for free access to all holy places.

Post-1967

In June 1967, on the second day of the Six-Day War, Israeli
paratroopers entered Jerusalem's Old City and made their way to the
Temple Mount; Col. Mordechai Gur, the brigade's commander, soon
broadcast a momentous message to the Israeli nation: "The Temple Mount
is [again] in our hands." For the first time in almost two thousand
years, the Temple Mount was under the control of a sovereign Jewish
people.

Gur ordered three paratroopers to climb to the top of the Dome of the
Rock and unfurl an Israeli flag over it; four hours later Defense
Minister Moshe Dayan ordered the flag taken down. This order initiated a
schizophrenic diplomatic and political state of affairs that continues
to this day.

Dayan proclaimed that, henceforth, there would be unrestricted Jewish access to the Temple Mount.

This compound was our Temple Mount. Here stood our Temple
during ancient time, and it would be inconceivable for Jews not to be
able freely to visit this holy place now that Jerusalem is under our
rule.[52]

Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Israel Defense Forces chief rabbi at that time,
was among the first soldiers to appear on the Temple Mount and described
his activities on that historic day:

When we arrived on the Temple Mount, I blew the shofar,
fell on the ground and prostrated myself in the direction of the Holy of
Holies, as was customary in the days when the Temple still stood. …
[Later] I found General Moti Gur sitting in front of the Omar Mosque. He
asked me if I wanted to enter, and I answered him that today I had
issued a ruling permitting all soldiers to enter because soldiers are
obligated to do so on the day when they conquer the Temple Mount in
order to clear it of enemy soldiers and to make certain that no booby
traps were left behind. … I took along a Torah scroll and a shofar and
we entered the building. I think that this was the first time since the
destruction of the Temple almost two thousand years ago that a Torah
scroll had been brought into the holy site which is where the Temple was
located. Inside I read Psalm 49, blew the shofar, and encircled the
Foundation Stone with a Torah in my hand. Then we exited.[53]

Some weeks later Rabbi Goren established a synagogue and study hall,
as well as his office, on the Temple Mount and held organized study and
prayers on the site. But within days, Goren's efforts were brought to a
halt. At the behest of Dayan, the Israeli government prohibited Rabbi
Goren from undertaking any further activities on the mount.[54]

As a result of another government decision that same year, the
general public, including Jews and Christians, was allowed to visit the
Temple Mount without hindrance but not to pray there. Many visitors have
taken advantage of this permission, but most observant Jews continued
to follow the instructions of the chief rabbinate, which prohibit Jews
from entering the mount because of the issue of ritual impurity. A small
number of rabbis have followed Rabbi Goren's plea to permit and
encourage Jews to visit those areas on the Temple Mount that do not
require complete ritual purity.

At the outbreak of "al-Aqsa intifada" in September 2000, the
Temple Mount was closed to all non-Muslims because it was feared that
the area might become a tinderbox of clashes with Palestinians. The
mount was reopened to non-Muslims in August 2003, but visiting hours
were severely curtailed with the authority of the waqf (Islamic
religious endowment), the Muslim custodians of the Temple Mount,
increasing in significance. During certain hours, Jews and Christians
are allowed to go up to the mount but only if they conform to a strict
set of guidelines, including a ban on prayer and bringing any "holy
objects" to the site. Visitors are forbidden from entering any of the
mosques without direct waqf permission; rules are enforced by waqf
agents, who watch tourists closely and alert nearby Israeli police to
any infractions. Thus despite the fact that the Israeli parliament
passed laws ensuring freedom of worship to all at every holy site,
Jewish prayer on any part of the Temple Mount continues to be
prohibited.

Conclusion

Even after the Roman armies destroyed the temple in 70 C.E., the Jews
never abandoned the site. No matter what obstacles or decrees others
placed in their way, Jews continued to ascend and pray at or near the
area where their temple once stood.

Whenever their physical presence on the mountain was outlawed, they
selected alternate prayer sites, such as the Mount of Olives from where
the Temple Mount could be seen. In more recent times, the Western Wall
served as such an alternative. But even during those periods, Jews
attempted, legally or otherwise, to go up unto the mountain to pray. In
recent decades, despite the opposition of the Muslim waqf and the Jewish chief rabbinate, the number of Jews going up on the Temple Mount in order to pray has increased year-by-year.[55]

Against this backdrop, the continued denial that Jews have any
connection with the Temple Mount cannot but pose a formidable obstacle
to a settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict.

F. M. Loewenberg is a professor emeritus at Bar-Ilan-University and lives in Efrat, Israel.